I have a choice of contrast ratio (black point) and I'm wondering where I should set it...right now it's at 250:1

There is a range and choice that starts at 50:1 and goes up to 500:1...there's also a 'default' option which leaves the contrast ratio pretty high so I just chose my own...

I've got the other settings at D65, Intensity 90.0 cd/m2, and gamma curve value at 2.2

Using a 2690wuxi, first generation...

I read a review on the 2490 on Sean Reid's site that Karl Lang said a glossy print in around 210:1, possibly 180:1 and that matte prints might be 110:1 or 120:1

For typical glossy and matter prints to say an Epson 9900, should I lower this contrast ratio to Karl's recommendations?

And what about for cmyk, four color printing? Do you think same deal, depending on if the paper surface will be glossy or matte?

I'm wondering what you do and why...thanks...

M

2690WUXi at 90cd/m^2 has rather low contrast, especially if you turn ColorComp on, and switch to "best grayscale tracking" calibration mode. The contrast choice doesn't really mean that it will get one of these vales, it just increases black point. Read "calibration information" to check the real contrast ratio.

I read a review on the 2490 on Sean Reid's site that Karl Lang said a glossy print in around 210:1, possibly 180:1 and that matte prints might be 110:1 or 120:1

For typical glossy and matter prints to say an Epson 9900, should I lower this contrast ratio to Karl's recommendations?

No...use the contrast setting you like to use for color and tone corrections and general imaging work then soft proof using the final output profile. Make sure you use the paper white and black ink and you'll have soft proofing in the dynamic range of the final output.

And seriously, 90? What, you live in a cave? With LCDs that seriously isn't needed nor desirable. Standard is 140 and I run my 3090's at 180. This is because I have carefully elevated the ambient lighting so I no longer need to work in a cave like I did with CRTs...and I have a GTI digital dimmer on my lightbox for viewing so I can match up white point luminosity between soft proof and lightbox.

2690WUXi at 90cd/m^2 has rather low contrast, especially if you turn ColorComp on, and switch to "best grayscale tracking" calibration mode. The contrast choice doesn't really mean that it will get one of these vales, it just increases black point. Read "calibration information" to check the real contrast ratio.

I did have ColorComp on but was using 'maximize contrast ratio'...I'll switch to 'best grayscale tracking' and try a new calibration...

No...use the contrast setting you like to use for color and tone corrections and general imaging work then soft proof using the final output profile. Make sure you use the paper white and black ink and you'll have soft proofing in the dynamic range of the final output.

And seriously, 90? What, you live in a cave? With LCDs that seriously isn't needed nor desirable. Standard is 140 and I run my 3090's at 180. This is because I have carefully elevated the ambient lighting so I no longer need to work in a cave like I did with CRTs...and I have a GTI digital dimmer on my lightbox for viewing so I can match up white point luminosity between soft proof and lightbox.

Thanks for the soft proof info...I'll make sure I've got it set up correctly...

no cave...I started some test calibrations when i received the monitor about three weeks ago...went slowly down from around 140 and my photos, color and tone, look fine to me even at 90...

much of my work till now has been book covers...i've kept my lighting real basic...60 watt overhead bulb, desk lamp behind monitor area...checking color here in varying 'real world' conditions and i've gotten very good matches for color when the final print is done...this has been with the older tube tech for monitors...this is my first quality lcd...

will usually check/verify final color at the printers where their art department takes my files, creates plates, proofs, and then be on press to make sure the color is in the ball park of acceptable to me and client...

however, I'm about to start printing my photos, will use a print studio near home who uses an Epson 9900...he scared me though on my first visit to talk about procedure...I asked if he provided profiles for me so I could soft proof at home...he said no...'bring your file, we'll make some test prints so you know you're color is what you want and then I'll make a final print'...

I'm still gonna try and soft proof my files at home...get as close as i can to what i want and then bring my files to him to maybe 'fine tune'...this printers space did look like a cave to me though...very dim lighting...

there is one other pro level printer I know of not too far from home, I live in a small town...and I'll visit him next week and see what kind of printers he uses, if he'll provide profiles, see how he works...

thanks for your help JS...I will try the Intensity at 140 again...try some new calibrations today...see if i can get better screen results...

No...use the contrast setting you like to use for color and tone corrections and general imaging work then soft proof using the final output profile. Make sure you use the paper white and black ink and you'll have soft proofing in the dynamic range of the final output.

And seriously, 90? What, you live in a cave? With LCDs that seriously isn't needed nor desirable. Standard is 140 and I run my 3090's at 180. This is because I have carefully elevated the ambient lighting so I no longer need to work in a cave like I did with CRTs...and I have a GTI digital dimmer on my lightbox for viewing so I can match up white point luminosity between soft proof and lightbox.

....Except of course that software based contrast control, with the sudden drop from full contrast to 'simulated print contrast' with all the 'don't have your palettes on screen, shut your eyes when you do it, blah blah' stuff, simply isn't anywhere near as good as having your monitor physically set to an appropriate contrast ratio for print production work while you work. It just works better to do it in hardware. That's why Karl Lang recommends it, and it would be fair to say he knows a bit about monitors.

Plenty of people find these things MUCH more of a match with actual prints at lower luminosities and at lower contrast ratios. That's why the high end monitors (SVs, CGS from Eizo) have these features - and they really work.

I am afraid of the b*llocking that will doubtless result from disagreeing, but there's definitely a different view on this.

....Except of course that software based contrast control, with the sudden drop from full contrast to 'simulated print contrast' with all the 'don't have your palettes on screen, shut your eyes when you do it, blah blah' stuff, simply isn't anywhere near as good as having your monitor physically set to an appropriate contrast ratio for print production work while you work. It just works better to do it in hardware. That's why Karl Lang recommends it, and it would be fair to say he knows a bit about monitors.

Plenty of people find these things MUCH more of a match with actual prints at lower luminosities and at lower contrast ratios. That's why the high end monitors (SVs, CGS from Eizo) have these features - and they really work.

I am afraid of the b*llocking that will doubtless result from disagreeing, but there's definitely a different view on this.

I'm sure you're right, some people will disagree...but I'm trying, at least for myself, to get a well rounded understanding of my equipment (sofware, monitor, printer) and then will use what gives me the best results for the specific job...the boulevard can go down to inkjet printers and their results as well as four color printers...I also like to look at my work in real light situations, not only controlled lighting especially for something like a book cover that will be seen in all kinds of different light...

these days I do work with photoshop and lightroom palettes on a different screen and keep my image area free of unnecessary visual color distraction and with a neutral gray background...i find it easier to work that way but have worked with all elements on the same screen and did fine...my personal feeling is to work to achieve pleasing color, contrast, detail...i've never had to match product color or logos so I'm not concerned with that type of exacting color matching...

later today I'll give some new calibration figures a try...I just want to get the most out of this equipment...also, it will save me bucks down the line in trial and error waste for time, ink, and paper...

Both methods are correct - the disadvantage of softproofing method is that you have to work with a very bright panel, and problem with hardware method is that you can match monitor's contrast only to one media, so you'd have to change calibration each time you change the media. Spectraview II can keep various monitor calibrations and change them without remeasurement, but so or so it takes some time, and if you prepare your job for many techniques and papers it may be annoying. In Jeff's method you just change the proof condition.

On the other hand, since I've been using soft proofing for almost as long as Karl has been involved in computer displays, (Karl doesn't call them "monitors" by the way) I know a little bit about the issue as well. I like to soft proof. Karl was perfectly happy to use soft proofing on my system with an NEC 3090 here at my studio when he was in town making test prints on an Epson 7900 a couple of months ago.

Personally, I dispute the fact that "it just works better to do it in hardware". It can work well to do it in hardware if the hardware is up to the task. But I seriously doubt that anybody would want to drive their nice bright LCD at 200/1 contrast ration and down at 85 CDM2 while having to work in a cave these days if you don't have to. Fact is that most LCD displays suck when driven so low in luminosity and their gamuts can actually suffer. A contrast ratio of 250-300/1 at 120-140 CDM2 (depending on your print viewing environment) will provide a good display working environment.

Truth be told, soft proofing for output on an Epson 7900 using Photo K inks is really pretty easy...and there's not much "oh, now it looks like crap" as there would be say with CMYK. Personally, I would suggest people get really good at using soft proofing before they go around and dim down (if they even can).

[SNIP]Personally, I dispute the fact that "it just works better to do it in hardware". It can work well to do it in hardware if the hardware is up to the task. But I seriously doubt that anybody would want to drive their nice bright LCD at 200/1 contrast ration and down at 85 CDM2 while having to work in a cave these days if you don't have to. Fact is that most LCD displays suck when driven so low in luminosity and their gamuts can actually suffer. A contrast ratio of 250-300/1 at 120-140 CDM2 (depending on your print viewing environment) will provide a good display working environment.

Jeff makes a very good point here. LCD displays suffer when driven to low luminance values, low contrast ratios, or both. High end CRT monitors were better in this regard; an Artisan held shadow detail at low contrast ratios better than any Eizo. Running a wide gamut LCD at a contrast ratio below 80-100:1 leads to a truncated, ill-behaved display gamut combined with level compression in the shadows.

Photoshop's Ink Black simulation is good in this regard. It gives an accurate view of how the comparatively lighter black of the actual print will render. Adjust your image accordingly.

The Paper White simulation is less accurate but still usable. Using an emissive display to mimic how light reflects from a paper surface is not an exact process. Complaints about Adobe's Paper White simulation have merit. Not much seems to have changed over the past decade or so, while competing products have advanced. I perform almost all tonal edits without the Paper White simulation enabled. You can, however, ascertain if there will be any problems holding highlight detail in print.

That said, there are instances where dropping the monitor contrast down is useful. For work destined for newsprint, a LCD cranked up to 150+ cd/m2 and minimum black level proves too much for Photoshop's mathematical wizardry alone to overcome. Needless to say, output gamut range and shadow detail are not strong points of newsprint, so dropping to a lower contrast ratio monitor calibration helps. You do not want to follow the advice of some internet pundits and match display and paper contrast values. In the case of newsprint, this would mean calibrating your display to have an output contrast of between 6:1 and 10:1. That would be ugly.

Complaints about Adobe's Paper White simulation have merit. Not much seems to have changed over the past decade or so, while competing products have advanced. I perform almost all tonal edits without the Paper White simulation enabled. You can, however, ascertain if there will be any problems holding highlight detail in print.

Yeah, I've never said Photoshop's soft proofing was perfect. I have high hopes that when (not if) Lightroom gets soft proofing that it will leapfrog past Photoshop's rather crusty code. Too bad really because Photoshop's soft proofing wouldn't be too difficult to update. Heck, they still have Thomas hanging around in case any of the current Photoshop engineers need help :~)

The other thing that soft proofing depends heavily on is the quality of the output profiles...recent Epson profiles have been quite good on their pro printers. I know the guy that makes many of them and I know what tools they use and there's really no way I could build my own any better. But for 3rd party paper the manufacture supplied profiles really run the gamut (no pun intended).

Some profile handle the interchange space to output space well enough but fail to have good interchange to display space tables. In that case, the profile is actually worse when soft proofing and will purely pi$$ you off because it induces color errors...

I actually haven't done too much newsprint work ever. So I can't comment on that. But I have soft proofed the last three books I've been involved with. The most recent, Photoshop for Photographer: Ultimate Workshop, the printed output matched the soft proofing Martin Evening and I did really well. The ONLY thing we didn't proof, the cover, did come back a bit dark. Which if we HAD soft proofed would have been noticed and fixed :~(